This is one of those things that occurs from me from time to time when my brain is in “Steven Wright” mode or every time I see a new world record set in the marathon. I wanted to poke my head in and see what the slowtwitchers think…
Since I was a VP of the USAT Board of Directors about a million years ago (It isn’t that big a deal when there are only 13 members that vote and I took 7 of them to Arbys), there’s been a stock answer for why we don’t have world records in triathlon. “Courses and terrain vary…” or some variation on that theme. Again in Steven Wright mode, “Then how come there is a world marathon record that has been set and broken in London, Chicago and Berlin?”
Should there be a world record at the Olympic distance and can courses be certified? Just the random thought…
With running, you have a much better chance of being accurate. When is the last time you a tri race that the
swim was correct?, let alone the bike or run?
I’ve never really thought about it since there seems to be a lot more variation to tri courses than marathon courses (at least the ones that you mention). I always thought that course records were good enough, but I don’t see a reason that you coudl not search the databases and find the fastest time ever run in an Oly and call it a World Record.
Zag - sorry, I never did thank you for that Arby’s Roast Beef and Chedder sandwich! I think Gilmore ate mine anyway.
Sounds like a interesting topic as we have over 25 years of finish times for the “Olympic Distance” triathlons. You might want to send Curl and e-mail to see if he has the winning times from the old BLTS. Of, course you will have to throw out the Bud Light Atlanta race as the swim course was a bit short that first year!
Vigo probably has some good times as his Columbia race has been held on the same course for lots of years.
Maybe if the governing body put in place standards to certify a course is eligible for world record attempts. The problem would be governing those standards, but I’m sure that could be done with financial penalties and or increased sanctioning costs for eligibility.
The increased cost both for sanctioning and ensuring course accuracy would hopefully be covered by better sponsorship revenue through increased media recognition.
Personally I think it would be good for the sport. However on the downside, it would encourage easier faster flatter courses…
What if instead of a WR you had a “World’s Best Triathlete”? If you calculated the average for each athlete on each course, each year? Because you would be factoring in multiple race venues, weather, etc, it would be more rounded out. Granted, it’s not a TRUE WR, but in a similar sense you could declare a “worlds fastest triathlete” based on his/her average time. Say a minimum number of races are required (5-10), in at least 6 different months, etc.
Sort of related - this debate came up often in my T&F days in college about the world’s best at any event. The long jump is a great example - Bob Beamon setting the long jump record in 1968, although his record was 1 to 2 feet longer than he had ever jumped prior (if memory serves me correctly, he was a 27+ft jumper normally). Whereas Carl Lewis was within inches of the record multiple times, and had (at that time at least) the most jumps over 28ft ever. At that that time, one could say Bob Beamon held the record (I believe it was 29 2 1/2") but Carl Lewis was truly the best long jumper due to his overall average.